DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 11 require that both the majority of the distal edge is disposed at one distance from the proximal edge and the entire distal edge is disposed to be in substantially parallel planes to the entire proximal edge in a transverse direction to the central axis of rotation of the bell-type countersink. However, the specification as filed makes no mention of the proximal and distal edges whatsoever, let alone any discussion of any distances or parallel alignments. Without a statement that the drawings are to scale (which is not present in the instant specification), dimensions and properties such as two edges being parallel to one another are not appropriate to make from drawings alone. Accordingly, the newly claimed details of the fixing element, such as the majority of the distal edge being disposed at one distance from the proximal edge and the entire distal edge being parallel to the entire proximal edge are not supported in the specification as filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9, 11-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasu et al. (USPG 20080131216, hereinafter ‘Sasu’) in view of Meier et al. (USPG 20070172319, hereinafter ‘Meier’).
Regarding claim 1, Sasu discloses a method for producing a blisk comprising a plurality of blade profiles 52 and channels extending between the blade profiles using a bell-type countersink, wherein the method comprises the following steps: providing a dis-shaped blank 50 and to form the channels in the blank, plunging the bell-type countersink into the blank on a lateral surface of the blank and thereby moving it along a generating line of the bell-type countersink (see claim 17 of Sasu). The displacement of the bell-type countersink is a 5-axis movement on a curved path (Paragraph [0035]). The bell-type countersink comprises a conical base body 22 (see Fig. 3 and Paragraph [0034] which discloses the cup-shaped body being conical) and a cutting insert 72A is fastened to the conical base body by means of a fixing element 60A that is attached onto the conical base body by means of an unlabeled mounting bolt (see Fig. 10 and Paragraph [0041]). The fixing element comprises an inner lateral surface facing a central axis of rotation of the bell-type countersink. The inner lateral surface comprises a substantially linear proximal edge to the conical base body and a distal edge to the conical base body opposite the proximal edge (see annotated Figure 10 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
276
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The majority (in this case the entirety) of the distal edge is disposed at one distance from the proximal edge, and the entire distal edge is disposed to be in substantially parallel planes to the entire proximal edge in a transverse direction to the central axis of rotation of the bell-type countersink (Note, Figure 10 illustrates the proximate and distal edges being substantially parallel to one another, inasmuch as no standard has been set forth by applicant to determine what degree ‘substantially parallel’ is. Should Applicant disagree that the two edges are ‘substantially’ parallel, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the proximal and distal edges as parallel to one another to make manufacturing easier by utilizing rectangular stock). Sasu discloses the fixing element displaying a flank angle (by means of being inserted into and therefore parallel with the conical base body as illustrated in Fig. 10, said conical base body 22 exhibiting said flank angle with respect to the rotational axis as illustrated in Fig. 3) but does not explicitly disclose a value of the flank angle.
Meier discloses a similar tool 10 which is also used for producing a blisk (Paragraph 0027]), wherein said tool has a conical base body exhibiting a flank angle PHI with respect to the rotational axis 20 (see e.g. Fig. 1). The flank angle is disclosed as being between 25˚ and 35˚ (Paragraph [0018]) and is variable based on the parameters required by the specifics of the workpiece design (Paragraph [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the bell-type countersink of Sasu by providing a 25˚ to 35˚ flank angle to the fixing element/conical base body as taught by Meier, depending on the design of the blisk/workpiece that is desired. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, Sasu discloses a pre-channel first being formed in the blank at a position between two blade profiles, and the pre-channel is then widened in at least one direction by means of the bell-type countersink to form the channels extending between the blade profiles (Paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 3, Sasu discloses that the tool/method for creating the blisk can be a roughing operation (Paragraph [0004]) which inherently leaves an allowance of material left on the blade profiles during machining. Sasu does not explicitly disclose the amount of material left on the blade profiles during such a roughing operation.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to leave at least 0.3 mm of material left on the blade profiles during the disclosed roughing operation, depending on the size of the workpiece, the desired remaining machining operations/tools and/or the machining parameters of the next step(s) of processing.
Regarding claims 4-6 and 17, Sasu discloses that the tool/method for creating the blisk can be a roughing operation, semi-finishing operation or finishing operation (Paragraph [0004]). Sasu also discloses that all channels of the blisk are cut by such process(es). The channels and flank surface(s) of the blades adjoining the channels are cut by different processes (Paragraphs [0035-0036]).
Therefore, while not explicitly disclosed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to first rough-machine the channels by means of the bell-type countersink at a constant angle of engagement (since all channels are identical) to a first depth that is less than a final depth of the channel (i.e. the inherent definition of a roughing operation) and then machine at least one of the blade flanks adjoining the channel respectively finished to the first depth (i.e. as described in claims 18 or 19 of Sasu). After finishing of all of the channels and blade flanks to the first depth, the channels followed by the blade flank(s) would be rough-machined at a constant second angle of engagement (again, since all channels are identical) to a second depth by means of the bell-type countersink (i.e. the inherent definition of a semi-finishing operation). Such a modification of the process taught by Sasu would have been an obvious modification to make depending on the order of operations desired by the operator of the machine and to incorporate any desired quality control checks such as taking measurements of the workpiece and/or adjusting the tools between steps/operations.
Regarding claim 7, Sasu discloses that the tool/method for creating the blisk can be used in a roughing, semi-finishing and/or finishing operation (Paragraph [0004]). Sasu also discloses the channels and flank surface(s) of the blades adjoining the channels being cut by different processes (Paragraphs [0035-0036]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to machine the channels first by rough-machining then finishing to a final depth, then machine an adjoining channel by rough-machining then finishing (e.g. as seen in Figs. 5-6) depending on the order of operations desired by the operator of the machine and to incorporate any desired quality control checks such as taking measurements of the workpiece and/or adjusting the tools between steps/operations.
Regarding claim 8, Sasu discloses that to machine the blade flanks, the bell-type countersink is moved along the blade flanks in a plurality of application directions (i.e. the three translational and two angular motions described in Paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 9, Sasu discloses the channels being finished by means of the bell-type countersink, wherein the displacement of the bell-type countersink during finishing is a 5-axial movement (Paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 11, Sasu discloses a bell-type countersink for carrying out a method according to claim 1. The bell-type countersink comprises a conical base body 22 (see Fig. 3 and Paragraph [0034] which discloses the cup-shaped body being conical) and a cutting insert 72A is fastened to the conical base body by means of a fixing element 60A that is attached onto the conical base body by means of an unlabeled mounting bolt (see Fig. 10 and Paragraph [0041]). The fixing element comprises an inner lateral surface facing a central axis of rotation of the bell-type countersink. The inner lateral surface comprises a substantially linear proximal edge to the conical base body and a distal edge to the conical base body opposite the proximal edge (see annotated Figure 10 in the rejection of claim 1 above). The majority (in this case the entirety) of the distal edge is disposed at one distance from the proximal edge, and the entire distal edge is disposed to be in substantially parallel planes to the entire proximal edge in a transverse direction to the central axis of rotation of the bell-type countersink (Note, Figure 10 illustrates the proximate and distal edges being substantially parallel to one another, inasmuch as no standard has been set forth by applicant to determine what degree ‘substantially parallel’ is. Should Applicant disagree that the two edges are ‘substantially’ parallel, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the proximal and distal edges as parallel to one another to make manufacturing easier by utilizing rectangular stock). Sasu discloses the fixing element displaying a flank angle (by means of being inserted into and therefore parallel with the conical base body as illustrated in Fig. 10, said conical base body 22 exhibiting said flank angle with respect to the rotational axis as illustrated in Fig. 3) but does not explicitly disclose a value of the flank angle.
Meier discloses a similar tool 10 which is also used for producing a blisk (Paragraph 0027]), wherein said tool has a conical base body exhibiting a flank angle PHI with respect to the rotational axis 20 (see e.g. Fig. 1). The flank angle is disclosed as being between 25˚ and 35˚ (Paragraph [0018]) and is variable based on the parameters required by the specifics of the workpiece design (Paragraph [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the bell-type countersink of Sasu by providing a 25˚ to 35˚ flank angle to the fixing element/conical base body as taught by Meier, depending on the design of the blisk/workpiece that is desired. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, Sasu discloses the fixing element 60A being screwed onto the conical base body 22 (Paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 13, Sasu discloses the conical base body 22 being partly hollow (see Fig. 3, wherein the conical base body is 22, the rotational axis is indicated in the dotted/dashed line, and the hollow portion being the empty space bounded by the conical base body 22 on one side of the rotational axis and the other, which is unlabeled/only shown partially).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasu et al. (USPG 20080131216) in view of Meier et al. (USPG 20070172319) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Zhuzhou (NPL provided with the Final Rejection of 04/08/2024).
Regarding claim 10, Sasu discloses that the tool/method for creating the blisk can be a roughing operation, semi-finishing operation or finishing operation listed in the alternative (Paragraph [0004]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create one bell-type countersink for roughing, one for semi-finishing and one for finishing, such that at least two different bell-type countersinks are used to machine the blank, in order to allow each tool to have the desired geometrical configurations/dimensions required to perform the distinct operations outlined in Sasu and eliminate downtime between operations such as the time required to individually adjust each cutting edge.
Zhuzhou discloses it being well-known to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the different bell-type countersinks to have differing flank angles, for example, to have the finishing tools to have higher flank angles to provide a greater clearance behind the cutting edge and reduce the likelihood of excess friction being applied to the workpiece, which could negatively impact the surface finish of the workpiece.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasu et al. (USPG 20080131216) in view of Meier et al. (USPG 20070172319) as applied to claims 11 and 1 respectively above, and further in view of Sheffler et al. (USPG 20040218987, hereinafter ‘Shefller’).
Regarding claims 14 and 16, Sasu discloses the cutting insert being made of a ceramic or hard metal (Paragraph [0037]), but neither Sasu nor Meier explicitly disclose constructing the cutting insert(s) from PCBN (polycrystalline cubic boron nitride).
Sheffler discloses a similar tool, wherein the tool is provided with replaceable cutting inserts 18 made of PCBN (polycrystalline cubic boron nitride) (Paragraph [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the cutting insert of the tool of claims 1 and 11 by making the insert from PCBN, depending on what material the workpiece is made from, in order to provide the tool with longer life. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 and 16-17 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Sasu in view of Meier fails to disclose the newly-claimed structural limitations regarding the proximal and distal edges of the inner lateral surface of the fixing element. These arguments are respectfully traversed.
As outlined in the rejection(s) above, the newly-added claim limitations do not have support in the specification as filed. Additionally, the linear proximal edge and distal edge of the inner lateral surface of the fixing element already exhibit the claimed ‘substantially parallel’ arrangement, or would have been an obvious modification one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have made. The entire distal edge (e.g. the part identified in the modified Figure 10 above) would not require any sort of redesign as asserted by Applicant in the remarks filed 12/18/2025. The proximal and distal edges are not required to be the same length, or to extend from a front to a rear surface of the fixing element, or any other configuration that would require any substantial redesign.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alan Snyder whose telephone number is (571)272-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a - 5:00p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil K Singh can be reached on 571-272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Alan Snyder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722